PHOENIX -- The share of tax dollars that actually wind up in Arizona classrooms slid again last year, to the lowest level in the 12 years the state has been monitoring.
A new report Friday from the Auditor General's Office found just 54.2 percent of every dollar schools received was used for "classroom spending.' That is down a half a percentage point from 2011 and below the peak at 58.6 percent in 2004.
That classroom spending figure includes salaries and benefits for teachers, aides and coaches. It also covers supplies such as pencils and paper, athletics, and activities like band or choir.
But that 54.2 percent figure exposes only part of the situation.
That percentage is applied to total per-pupil operational spending in 2012 of $7,475, or $4,051 per student.
But total per pupil spending by schools has declined now for the third straight year.
In 2009, that figure was $7,908. So the 56.9 figure for that year translated out to $4,500 per student.
Put another way, actual real-dollar classroom spending is 10 percent less than it was three years ago. And that's in real dollars, before accounting for inflation.
And Auditor General Debra Davenport said if school districts were putting the same percentage of their resources into the classroom in 2012 as they were in 2001, they would have spent an additional $310 million on instruction.
By comparison, the national average for classroom spending was in 2012 61.3 percent.
But there's another side to that comparison, too. Davenport said part of the way Arizona keeps its instructional spending lower is by putting more children in each classroom.
She said in 2009 -- the most recent figures available, the national average class size was 15.3 students per teacher. Arizona's figure that year was 17.1.
John Huppenthal, elected state school superintendent in 2010, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Despite the multi-year slide in percentage of dollars winding up in the classroom, Davenport said there are some bright spots in the report, at least statewide
"The relatively low classroom dollar percentage was not the result of high administration costs, because Arizona districts allocated a smaller percentage of resources for administration than the national average,' she wrote in the report. The Arizona figure is 9.9 percent; nationally, school districts spend 10.7 percent of their budgets on administration.
Still, the percentage of school funds spent on administration is 0.4 percentage points higher now than in 2004. That category includes superintendents, principals, business managers and other staff who do accounting, payroll, printing, human resource and tech services.
Within that category, however, size makes a difference.
Davenport said the largest school districts spent an average of just $632 per pupil on administrative costs due to the economies of scale. That increased to $800 for medium-large districts, $1,149 for medium-sized districts -- and $1,519 for the smallest.
State lawmakers have tried for years to force consolidation of the state's more than 200 school districts. So far, though, the best they have been able to do is offer financial carrots to districts willing to combine, with few takers.
Davenport said what is making the non-instructional side of the equation so high in Arizona are the categories of plant operations -- 12.4 percent here versus 9.5 percent nationally -- and food service costs of 5.1 percent in Arizona compared to 3.8 percent nationally.
That issue of plant operations, she said, can be blamed in part on the fact that in the last five years Arizona schools added nearly 12 million square feet of building space, a 9.4 percent increase. Yet at the same time, the number of student attending dropped by 2 percent.
The result is that building capacity usage dropped from 81 percent in 2007 to 79 percent last year.
Davenport acknowledged that some of that new construction was started before enrollment began to decline in 2009. But some of it, she said, was due to what has been the reluctance of some districts to reduce excess space.
She said, though, that attitude appears to be changing, with 26 fewer schools operating last year than the prior year.
"Although decisions to close buildings or schools can be difficult and painful, these decisions are important because school district funding is based primarily on the number of students enrolled at the district, not the number of schools or amount of square footage maintained,' Davenport said. She also said that districts that completely close schools, including turning off utilities, can save more than those which continue to heat, cool and maintain closed buildings beyond minimum levels.
The increasing cost of food service, however, is something else.
Davenport said that, statewide, the cost of meals was only a nickel higher in 2012 than five years earlier.
But districts served 9.7 million more meals. She said that is not surprising "considering the state's poverty rate increased from 17.7 percent to 25.1 percent during that time and the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals increased from 50 to 59 percent.'
Transportation costs also are up, making up 4.8 percent of districts' operating dollars in 2012 compared with 4.3 percent in 2007.
Some of that, Davenport said, was an increase in the number of miles driven. That includes the effect of closing some schools and having to transport students farther.
But it also can be blamed in part to diesel fuel increasing from $3.04 a gallon in 2007 to $4.16 last year.